It should be pointed out though that Lovecraft always maintained the book and its author the Mad Arab (Abdul Alhazred) to be entirely fictional products of his imagination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necronomicon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Necronomicon

Should be a good read, but I wonder if Simon is going to throw any practical knowledge in there (any that will at least jump right out at you).

From what I read about it it's a story of the book a "biblobiography" if you will .
And how it effected history like the JFK assassination WW2 all that .
Seems there may be a little new magics in it but not that much.

Nebo

LOL!
Simon was/is an opportunist. He hasn't changed a bit from reading this announcement. If Herman were still alive he'd be laughing his ass off! I'll bet he is anyway! Simon has always had a dramatic flair and a penchant for conspiracy theory. IMHO, Simon probably needs some more cash, so hold onto your pocketbooks! (Actually, if you have some spare shekels, get a signed, numbered first edition...it may be worth some bucks in the future!) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Anyone care to elaborate about this Simon? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

About half of the book is concerned with the back-story of the Necronomicon: the rare book theft, the churches and monks involved, the translation, the eventual publication, the strange and premature deaths of some of the important people involved, etc. along with photocopied US Government documents showing how the churches were involved in the JFK assassination investigation, and copies of the New York Times articles concerning the book thefts, the suicide of one of the bishops involved, etc. It is also concerned with describing the "occult renaissance" that took place in New York City in the 1970s and, yes, the Magickal Childe bookstore and Herman Slater.

The other half of the book is concerned with the Necronomicon itself: its roots in Sumerian and Babylonian magic, for instance, and a refutation of some of the poor scholarship that has gone into criticizing the book. There's a discussion of "Kutu-Lu" versus Cthulhu, for instance, and "katonic" versus chthonic, etc. but we also trace the origins of some of the book's magic to ancient Arab (pre-Islamic and Islamic) sources as well as show how some Sumerians may have survived in the Middle East and India.

A lot of what is written here could not have been published earlier, for a variety of reasons that become clear when you read the book. It will be controversial, I'm sure, but also benefit those who -- in the face of jeers and sneers -- held that the Necronomicon was a valuable work of magic. Dead Names will refute the critics -- both those who criticize the book as a hoax, and those who claim that the Necronomicon is a hodge-podge of useless and unrelated occult factoids.

For more on the practical side, the Gates of the Necronomicon is also coming out this year. This book is designed for the practitioner, and also for those who seek a broader context for the Necronomicon. It is a step-by-step guide which also talks about complementary systems and shows how they are related.

Thank you Simon for filling us in on the details of your new book. I for one am planning to purchase a copy when it finally comes out. The site owner and I have been hoping to get more authors to post about their up coming projects and titles to better inform our members of new material. Please feel free to post promotional material about and future books including the "Gates of the Necronomicon". I know that is a title that is long in coming.

Sounds great. The Necronomicon has worked wonders for me. It has brought me into contact with my master Enki who forever whispers in my ear. The book on the gates sounds good and I hope those who have not yet mastered the gates might find it useful. May Marduk smile upon your endevours. [email protected]

As the Simon Necronomicon is but 218 pages long and the Necronomicon is said to be 800 to 1200 pages will the be more from the MS.

Nebo

I just finished the book today. I really enjoyed the second half of the book Simon seemed to present a convincing case. He confirmed a lot of theorys and realizations I have had about the Grimore. It was nice to see him smoke every arguement that the goofs from the nec files gave in their book about it being a hoax. When I bought the nec files years ago I expected a better arguement on Harms and Gonce part, instead all I got was Internet rumors as sources and the ol' "IT IS NOT A REAL SUMERIAN GRIMORE I SHOULD KNOW I INVOKE ISHTAR EVERY NIGHT IN MY WET DREAMS!!1!" arguement and I was out of 30 dollars. But Simon's new book put together alot of peices about the Grimore in a professional way. Hopeflly now we can put all the silly speculation behind us and get to the magic of the text. I can't wait for the gates of the necronomicon to come out in November.

This post has been edited by distillate: Apr 11 2006, 01:25 AM

Even if it is a hodge podge of scraps and made up ideas, is that not what Chaos Magick's all about?
I reckon it's probably a good thing this book is available anyway, and by all accounts, the rituals and methods seem to work for those who practise them.
I wonder if Austin Spare's sigilisation techniques could be put to good use here, as they seem to be good for everything.
I'd like to give some of this a shot, but time and circumstances make it a bit difficult at present, and I wouldn't like to suffer the Watcher's wrath if I forgot to sacrifice to him, especially halfway through a shopping spree at the local supermarket.
Makes the eyes water just to think about it.

Thanks everyone for your supportive (and humorous!) comments on Dead Names. Even the skeptical comments are welcome, since the Necronomicon seems to encourage controversy wherever it appears. That's its nature, I guess.

I'm grateful that the second half of the book has cleared up a lot of the misconceptions fostered by the mean-spirited (no pun intended) Harms/Gonce text which was badly researched. I hope the first half explains the history of the book to the satisfaction of most of you, and shows its relevance to broader issues and events.

As for me being an "opportunist" ... well, you have to admit it has taken me more than 25 years after the Necronomicon to publish another book! As an opportunist, I'm pretty pathetic. But when it was safe to tell the story behind the Necronomicon -- and it took decades before it was safe -- I did so, so from that perspective I am an opportunist.

You may have questions about Dead Names and/or the Necronomicon. Please feel free to ask them on this site and I will try to respond as best I can, even though my responses may not always be timely. I realize that the banishings are an issue -- they have been since the beginning -- but if one performs the rituals correctly then there is nothing to worry about. You enter a different space when you start the Necronomicon workings, and the space stays with you but that doesn't mean that you will be victimized by the effects. I believe that the Necronomicon represents a system of magic in place in the Middle East before the creation of the Jewish Qabala and maybe concurrent with ancient Egyptian magical practices. I think that the system represented by the Necronomicon -- an amalgam of Babylonian and Sumerian systems -- is what eventually developed into early Jewish mystical practices, derived from the era of the Babylonian captivity. This is just a theory at this point, and I hope to explore it further.

Good hunting!

Hi Simon.
I downloaded and read the spellbook Kinjo helpfully put up in his post, and got myself a nice tingly feeling down my spine as I was reading it (Always a good sign.).
I subsequently ordered the hardcopy version earlier today, along with the Necronomicon, as I would really love to give this a go, and I felt that I understood it quite well, especially the pronunciation of the language, maybe because I've been learning Welsh, which is read phonetically, and after hearing the downloadable digitised tape, I found that when you said the words, they sounded just the same as I heard them in my head.
Maybe in a previous incarnation.......
I've always felt an affinity for this kind of stuff, but have been a bit scared of it to be honest, but upon hearing the tape and reading the PDF, I reckon I could probably handle it OK if like you said, I follow the directions carefully.
After all, if I cross a busy street without looking both ways, I'm asking for trouble.
Cheers.
Steve. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/922.gif)

Pleased to have the opportunity.

Is this an appropriate place, or shall we start a new thread?

It appears Simon has been here and left already today. Perhaps I should ask an actual question, to get the ball rolling. There's a leadup, so please bear with me.

Simon: On page 202 of Dead Names, you state that a sura from the Koran mentions a "kathoolan," "qhadhulu," or "khadhulu," a name that, according to one Parker Ryan, can be equated with "Cthulhu." You refer to this repeatedly through the book, and ask (p. 292) why John and I "mysteriously" do not discuss Ryan's theory, though we mention him elsewhere.

Here is Parker's original post. One of the two sources Parker cites for the Khadhulu/qhadhulu-Cthulhu link, The Muqarribun by Steven Lock and Jamal Khaldun, has never turned up in any catalog or database we have consulted. Have you found it? If so, the publication information would be appreciated. (It is not quoted in Dead Names.)

The other cited article, William Hamblin's "Further Notes on the Necronomicon," is the original source of this assertion. This was originally a fiction article published in the Cthulhu Companion (1983), a supplement for the Call of Cthulhu roleplaying game, and incorporated into the game rulebook in subsequent printings. In this article and others for the game, Hamblin uses "evidence" from Greek, Arabic, and Latin to "prove" the existence of the Old Ones. He now is a professor at Brigham Young University, where he is known for his ingenious Mormon apologetics and a particularly juvenile practical joke.

Perhaps it is my poor scholarship, but I'm baffled as to why these sources were apparently not checked. Would you mind explaining this to me?

Thanks in advance,

Dan

Dan, the references you mention were not cited by me because they were not referenced by me or needed. On the basis of Parker Ryan's post, I looked up the original citation from the Qu'ran; I then followed up with other sources which I do mention, such as the book on the Jinn and the concordance to the Qu'ran, along with a transliteration of the Arabic citation which clearly shows the term "khathoolan". I asked why you did not mention this information -- which you could have checked yourself, as I did -- even though you were aware of Parker Ryan and, I assume, of his post on this subject. While William Hamblin may be fond of practical jokes, I assure you that the Qu'ranic reference to khathoolan is genuine and verifiable by anyone.

I hope this answers your question.

Simon

Simon my brother keep doing what you have been doing. Enki forever guides my hand as I know he does yours. Anyone can be a sceptic. It takes an iron soul to stand in the darkness and see past the dark and into the light. And aratagar shall be no more and the earth shall abide not. I think few of us see past the apparent darkness and can grasp that holy light that is hidden. You can interpret anything almost any way it sees you fit. The truth is different for everyone. Some things are holy and best not understood by the weak minded and unworthy. Does SImon spell everything out for us step by step and hold our hand like we are in kindergarten? No he does what he is supposed to. He points his finger into the darkness and says if you have balls enough enter that darkness and seek the light. He does exactly what he is supposed to. Simon keep being you and don't let the beyotches get you down brother. Many are called but few are chosen.


This post has been edited by smasher666: Apr 15 2006, 09:45 PM

Does anyone know if this is a reference to the same Watcher as described in The Necronomicon?

Just out of interest.

EDITED BY ASHNOOK

SICKSICKSICKS they are not at all the same....but please keep questions about the Necronomicon down in the Necronomicon section. I know we are all excited about having Simon and Dan Harms gracing our presence lol but the purpose of this thread is to discuss Simon's new book, not his first book (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) .

Spare does not refer to the same Watcher as in the Necronomicon. This version of the Necronomicon was not in existance during Spares lifetime.

EDITED BY THE MOD SQUAD

Once again, the debate about Spare's watcher does not belong in a discussion about Simon's new book. Furthermore, the watcher is not even sumerian in origin. I do not understand why you came off so hostile towards Bym and myself. Official warning for furthering an off topic discussion after a verbal warning was issued.

Simon,

Thanks for answering my question.

To clarify - we were aware of this article when originally published (I actually pointed out to Ryan the difficulties with using Hamblin, which is why he gets defensive in one introduction about the "Nyarlathotep" derivation from the same source.) We simply didn't feel that one isolated word from Arabic by itself, given a particular spelling by someone clearly interested in titillating Mythos fans and creating mythical etymologies for entertainment purposes, constituted proof of much of anything.

What strikes me about your response, though, is the apparent lack of scholarly curiosity. The information on Hamblin's article was accessible through a simple Google search. From all appearances, it was a crucial source for an argument validating the Necronomicon. Yet, if your response is an indication, you didn't even take the first step in locating it.

DEAD NAMES, I submit, is a book with many inaccuracies. I'm not talking about its attacks on myself and John as poor scholars, dubious credentials, or people with funny names. We know they're not true, and we can certainly take what we've dished out to Simon and others. The book does point out a few areas where THE NECRONOMICON FILES needs to be clarified, or - horrors! - corrected, and we're happy to do so once we can verify those points with other sources.

Yet much of the scholarship used to bolster DEAD NAMES falls prey to that lack of curiosity. There's plenty of talk in it about the need for good research, but much of the evidence falls apart with a trip to a library, a quick email, or simply by presenting all the information given on the topic in THE NECRONOMICON FILES.

As those who have read my book know, I wouldn't be saying this if I couldn't prove it. I'm willing to present that evidence here, and defend my own position. Just remember I may not be on all the time, and that I've only had two weeks to look at the book! I'm happy to hear Simon's response, and those of the rest of you.

Let's get started...

The above might sound harsh, so let me give an example. BTW, if you want a response of mine to a particular piece in either book, please let me know.

Dead Names, pp. 287-88:


Simon's conclusion?



It's a pretty damning indictment, no?

Maybe looking back at the first few sentences to the section covering pages 134-36 of The Necronomicon Files will help:



The section goes on to discuss the references to "Sumer" and "Chaldaea" in Crowley - not Grant, not Parsons, and certainly not modern magic in general. I'm not certain why anyone would have expected otherwise.

Dan

While I respect your work, your inditment of Simon falls just a bit short. In my mind it falls because the Necronomicon Files does not do a good enough job of interpreting the Necronomicon from a Magickian's standpoint. For example, in the Necronomicon files you claim that the gates of the necronomicon are equivilant to the tree of death. I am wondering how you came to this conclusion! My point is this, how can you properly indite the system, or his new book, without consulting magickians who actually practice the magick contained in the Necronomicon. And I am not talking about your "magickian friend" who dabbled with the spellbook either.

Dan, the next line in your book after "So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?" is: "Daniel and I have both searched diligently for this quote and haven't found it yet, though we have sifted painstakingly through our considerable libraries and enlisted the help of mages on the alt.magick newsgroup on the Internet, many of whom are dedicated Thelemites with a knowledge of Crowley's writing that exceeds our own." (p. 134)

I then go on to show that this quote, which no one in your circle could find, is standing right there in the same book by Grant, the Magical Revival, that was cited in yours. It is a quote by Crowley. Not Grant, not Parsons. I think it is a pretty damning indictment, if you ask me, of your painstaking sifting.

As for the Hamblin reference, you are focused on that but I wasn't. It wasn't important. What was important was the relation of the Arabic -- and Quranic -- khadhulu to Cthulhu. It's still important, whether brought to my attention by Hamblin, Ryan, or Milton Berle. I gave Ryan his due, as was only proper, then went on to investigate it myself from the original, primary source: the Quran. I then went and referenced other works by Islamic scholars on the same point. I figure that was better than looking for Hamblin. I think that's scholarship, not relying on the Internet and some unidentified "mages" who couldn't find an important quote by Crowley on Sumer.

But ...I could be wrong.

I also don't want to sound harsh, but The Necronomicon Files were an extended attack on me and my contribution to the field so I feel entitled to a little harshness! Anyway, no hard feelings. Life's too short. I stand behind my statements regarding Crowley and the Sumerian tradition, and how it was picked up and amplified by Parsons and Grant. I also stand behind my research concerning khadhulu/Cthulhu and, yes, even KUTU-LU. I feel that the research presented in Dead Names more than adequately answered the objections in The Necronomicon Files; of course, I don't expect you to feel that way. C'est la vie. I am perfectly willing to respond to other criticisms as best I can, though.

I was quite surprised to find the Book of Dead Names in Barnes and Nobles in the east 40's of Manhattan NY. It is well written and a good read. I think its pretty apparant from the introduction that Simon says alot of people have died in connection to the book. He says.

" I hope that when the reader is finished with this account -this memento mori this confessio, this summa necronomica- that he or she comes away with the certain knowledge that no matter what the necronomicon is or isn't it is most definitly not a hoax.

It seems like Simon is trying to get it off his chest. Alot of his friends connected with the book are now dead. So it must be bothersome for him to hear the babbling of idiots which does not exclude postings on this syte.

Whatever whatever anyone who has ever read the Necronomicon files from cover to cover without vomiting is most notably and outstandingly a dork wad. I love Lovecraft but lets not compare apples to bannanas.

This post has been edited by smasher666: Apr 15 2006, 09:47 PM

Hi Simon,

and thank you for a thrilling read. I picked up dead names a week ago, and it is the first book which has kept me up half night because I couldn't put it down for a long time.

I also look forward immensely to the gates. Having had a brief brush with your nec I have not wanted to touch it since :-) but given even more info that may very well become an option. My only complaint is that I shall have to wait until september before I can get my hands on the gates.

Sometimes I have had the feeling that it is - will be with these two books that the fondly nicked Simonomicon current will entrench itself as one of the stronger currents of contemporality.

I guess I _may_ have hundreds of questions when/if I start working with it, so I really hope you will be online after the publication of gates. But for now I only have one, which is more the idle curiosity kind: since the publication of dead names I figure your anonymity will be pretty much gone - I mean, people must be able to identify you given the new data.

Noxlux

This post has been edited by nox: Apr 16 2006, 12:50 PM

Thanks for your kind comments. I hope Gates lives up to its reputation!

As for my identity ... well, people will assume they know who I am, and they may be in for a surprise! In any event, I am not the first writer to use a pseudonym and I won't be the last. Some very famous authors use them, just to keep their identity secret when they try a new genre, for instance. No one complains to them! And guys like J.D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon don't use pseudonyms ...but then they disappear completely anyway. In the past few decades we've learned that writers such as Anne Rice, Stephen King, and many others have written and published books under other names. Somehow, though, when it comes to the Necronomicon and Simon there seems to be this cottage industry in revealing my identity. Weird, huh?

Let the book stand for itself. Who I am is not important at all. Think of me as just a means to an end for getting the Necronomicon to the public.

I am willing to answer any questions you might have, though, insh'allah.

A number of reasons, really. Back in those days when we did intensive work on the book (c. 1996-97), I don't recall a lot of Necronomicon practitioners on the Internet - at least, not many who were visible. Back then, we didn't have Yahoo groups and large-scale online forums. Most of the interaction took place on Usenet, where supporters of the Necronomicon were flamed fairly regularly (not to say that was always unjustified - there were plenty of people who tried to lecture others about Lovecraft, Sumer, Crowley, etc. based on nothing more than Simon's book, so people were testy). So most of these people were out of our reach.

Second, I wanted to keep the amount of experiential knowledge in the book limited. I respected those who had such beliefs, but so often that sort of thing is individualistic and subjective enough that it lacks much convincing value, and might turn off and offend non-occultists. I was wrong on that count - the worst grief we've gotten for the non-material material (!) we did include came from occultists, who complain about John's section on psychic attack, or what I find to be a beautifully retro book curse, or that we dipped beyond the five senses in our commentary.

Third, John and I saw our book as a counterpoint to that of Simon. The picture Simon had drawn in his books was of a group of brave, powerful, liberated souls, protecting the world with magic from the Ancient Ones. We wanted to show the other side of matters.

Does that help?

If you have any particular questions regarding the Tree of Death, please let me know. It's been a while since I looked over this stuff, and if I go back and reread the whole book, I might vomit or become a dork wad.

Simon wrote:


We did not cite its appearance in THE MAGICAL REVIVAL, it's true. Nonetheless, there is no mention of the source there, which throws us back to John's question - where did Crowley write it, and what was its significance?

(We did ask Grant privately about the quote, but even he was uncertain as to its origins. I hasten to add that, given the time since REVIVAL's publication and the vast corpus of Aleister Crowley's writing, both published and unpublished, this can hardly be seen as a mark against him.)

Overall, the section still holds true - Aleister Crowley, despite what others have suggested, was not appreciably interested in Sumer or its religion. The "Sumerian Tradition" quote is an obscure, likely unpublished, one, the supposed importance of which is not reflected by the rest of his work.

I'll drop the point on khadhulu, as it seems we've both given our positions on the topic.



Thanks. I hope to continue in that spirit.

I'll post again tomorrow, most likely regarding the Mafteah Shelomoh (see DEAD NAMES, page 197).